HTTP://MYOMLAB.MATHXL.COM/LOGIN_OM.HTM

http://myomlab.mathxl.com/login_om.htm

http://myomlab.mathxl.com/login_om.htm

Transferring juveniles into a criminal justice system that precludes a rehabilitative response may not be very sensible public policy. Most reasonable people agree that a small number of young offenders should be transferred to the adult system because they pose a genuine threat to the safety of other juveniles, the severity of their offense merits a relatively more severe punishment, or their history of repeated offending bodes poorly for their ultimate rehabilitation. However, this does not describe the tens of thousands of young people who currently are being prosecuted in the adult system, a large proportion of whom have been charged with nonviolent crimes. When the wholesale transfer to criminal court of various categories of juvenile offenders starts to become the rule rather than the exception, this represents a fundamental challenge to the very premise that the juvenile court was founded on--that adolescents and adults are different.

I believe that it is logically impossible to make the age of the offender irrelevant in discussions of criminal justice policy. A fair punishment tot an adult is unfair when applied to a child who did not understand the consequences of his or her actions. The ways we interpret and apply laws should rightfully vary when the case at hand involves a defendant whose understanding of the law is limited by intellectual immaturity or whose judgment is impaired by emotional immaturity. Moreover, the implications and consequences of administering a long and harsh punishment are very different when the offender is young than when he or she is an adult. (Fox 2006)

Finally, the choice of trying a young offender in adult vs. juvenile court determines the possible outcomes of the adjudication. In adult court, the outcome of being found guilty of a serious crime is nearly always some sort of punishment. In juvenile court, the outcome ...